Citywomble you are absolutely correct about far too many motorists and cyclists (and for that matter pedestrians) being wrong about who must give way at an intersection, just as long as you include yourself in that number

There are different rules for different kinds of intersections, but the basic rule is summarised in NSW Road Rule 353

NSW Road Rule 353 References to pedestrians crossing a road wrote:(1) If a driver who is turning from a road at an intersection is required to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the road that the driver is entering, the driver is only required to give way to the pedestrian if the pedestrian’s line of travel in crossing the road is essentially perpendicular to the edges of the road the driver is entering—the driver is not required to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the road the driver is leaving.

While this is a NSW specific rule, it reflects the rest of the Australian Road Rules, eg rule 73 dealing with T intersections like the one shown in the photo

NSW Road Rule 73 Giving way at a T-intersection wrote:(2) If the driver is turning left (except if the driver is using a slip lane) or right from the terminating road into the continuing road, the driver must give way to:(b) any pedestrian who is crossing the continuing road at or near the intersection.

(4) If the driver is turning left (except if the driver is using a slip lane) from the continuing road into the terminating road, the driver must give way to any pedestrian who is crossing the terminating road at or near the intersection.

(6) If the driver is turning right from the continuing road into the terminating road, the driver must give way to:(b) any pedestrian who is crossing the terminating road at or near the intersection.

Our WA friends will find the same provision in regulation 53 of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA).

There are however important differences between the road rules and negligence. Any reasonable person driving a motor vehicle understands that they should avoid running over people, even if that person may be breaking a road rule & even if the person is lying drunk in the middle of the road.

As shocking as that incident is, it is good to see that he is being charged with attempted murder rather than some lame dangerous driving offence.

Anyway to the original article, so how many people complained to the paper or the australian press council about it? Now might be a time to complain and include this latest story to show what "win the roads back before something really bad happens" looks like... Complaints can be done to the APC online.

It's hard to believe this is a road rage incident. Try reading between the lines. Pure speculation, but substitute "Gold Coast man" with "outlaw motorcycle gang member" and you may have a clue why the charge is attempted murder.

It's hard to believe this is a road rage incident. Try reading between the lines. Pure speculation, but substitute "Gold Coast man" with "outlaw motorcycle gang member" and you may have a clue why the charge is attempted murder.

Would you like to speculate on the unreported story of the driver of a 6 tonne Isuzu truck that ran down 2 cyclists in the bike lane on Reedy Creek Rd at 5.30am yesterday?? The truck stopped 200m up the road then drove off.

One of the cyclists was close to death and had to be revived, has spinal injuries, a punctured lung, broken ribs and shoulder!

It's more likely that the vehicle was coming up the side street and the family crossed in front of it. In that case the pedestrian is required to give way.

He is so wrong, along with far too many motorists and cyclists.At an intersection, the pedestrian crossing the side street has right of way and the vehicle has to give way. AlsoAny vehicle turning out of the side street has to give way to pedestrians crossing the road being joined. No exceptions, all states and territories.

I think you misread my post, citywomble.

I was stating that it looked like the vehicle was driving up the street to the intersection and the pedestrian crossed in front of them. Before turning, not after turning. In this case, the pedestrian is required to give way.

wellington_street wrote:It's more likely that the vehicle was coming up the side street and the family crossed in front of it. In that case the pedestrian is required to give way.

Bit difficult to determine this one without some more info...

Driver never observed the child at all - thus car was still accelerating when it hit the child - brake application likely was made well after the impact (1.5 seconds+ for unexpected event) and the thus the car has been turned around and returned to the scene to assist. To be honest - 4wd driver, couldn't possibly imagine they'd run back - that would be like them not doing a lap of the block in case a park opens up right out front next lap. Also I believe its a Q5 - 1800kg personal transport. Not going to be a lot of societal soul searching about the wisdom of 200kw 1800kg high riding, high clearance city cars with a propensity to shove smaller people under them either.

But then again, it's easy to jump to conclusions before any evidence is tendered in court, isn't it? My preference is to consider the facts before deciding on the conclusion.

RonK wrote:So my speculation that this was not an unpremeditated random act of road rage is now shown to be correct.

This was a deliberate attack on rival suitor. That he happened to cycling at the time was a coincidence.

Egg on face for all those who rushed to conclude a link with this inflammatory piece of media commentary.

Wrong....if the rival suitor had been walking down the street with a semi automatic rifle, Glenton would have been mad to attack.However, the apparent suitor was on a bicycle, ergo a defenseless sitting duck, which green lighted Glenton to strike. Why Glenton determined someone cycling is an easy target, is open to conjecture.

Shred931 wrote:It seems as though that child may have ran out onto the road into the path of the car. Looks like a tragic accident not a case of negligent driving.

I believe the entire reason that the speed limit is reduced to 40 in school zones is because that you can't rely on sensible behaviour from minors (under 18!!) near roads. If it is not negligent driving, why slow the cars down? I doubt this kid would have been hit at 40kmh given the intersection... the car was the problem, not the child.

You slow the cars down to 40 because they cannot respond quickly at 60. The car is a terrible vehicle to have around children of any age. A bike wouldn't have had the same issues as an SUV.

The driver can suffer the guilt - our driving rules place the onus of responsibility on the car because a pedestrian can't take measures to control the 2 tonnes of steel. Our school zone rules CLEARLY acknowledge the risk that a car presents to children. If the driver can't adapt to the riskier conditions in a school zone, then they should not be driving. It is not an accident when it is foreseeable.

I wonder what we did BEFORE 40 kph limits around schools, maybe we taught kids about the dangers on roads and how to cross properly.

GraemeL wrote:I wonder what we did BEFORE 40 kph limits around schools, maybe we taught kids about the dangers on roads and how to cross properly.

KIds walked to school. There were lots of them about. It was obvious that drivers needed to slow down. Most (but not all) schools were on secondary or residential roads. There was (and still is) a clear rule about flagged school crossings, which drivers back then knew and bothered to follow.

Oh, and in many situations there were more child pedestrian deaths than today. Our tiny nuclear families make parents paranoid about their "precious ones", so it seems that the risk of death from traffic and other threats is so much greater today than in the past. Generally these risks are actually much lower.

Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.

Shred931 wrote:It seems as though that child may have ran out onto the road into the path of the car. Looks like a tragic accident not a case of negligent driving.

I believe the entire reason that the speed limit is reduced to 40 in school zones is because that you can't rely on sensible behaviour from minors (under 18!!) near roads. If it is not negligent driving, why slow the cars down? I doubt this kid would have been hit at 40kmh given the intersection... the car was the problem, not the child.

You slow the cars down to 40 because they cannot respond quickly at 60. The car is a terrible vehicle to have around children of any age. A bike wouldn't have had the same issues as an SUV.

The driver can suffer the guilt - our driving rules place the onus of responsibility on the car because a pedestrian can't take measures to control the 2 tonnes of steel. Our school zone rules CLEARLY acknowledge the risk that a car presents to children. If the driver can't adapt to the riskier conditions in a school zone, then they should not be driving. It is not an accident when it is foreseeable.

I wonder what we did BEFORE 40 kph limits around schools, maybe we taught kids about the dangers on roads and how to cross properly.

Graeme

Over the period 4 years before, till 4 years after the introduction of school zones, total pedestrian fatalities dropped by 29% in NSW (general background reduction), and total school children fatalities by 41%, ie its widely accepted that they are a successful measure.

In any case, this child was crossing the side street properly - ie by NSW law, the driver was required to give way to the child, and the car was probably stopped when the child set out on their crossing, and the child was in the area that motorists should expect pedestrians to be (between the pram ramps).

RonK wrote:So my speculation that this was not an unpremeditated random act of road rage is now shown to be correct.

This was a deliberate attack on rival suitor. That he happened to cycling at the time was a coincidence.

Egg on face for all those who rushed to conclude a link with this inflammatory piece of media commentary.

As it turned out, it was nothing to do with road rage as originally reported. The post assault was the give away that I think you picked up on. That was personal.

Australians generally have a bad road rage culture. The meekest person will suddenly turn into a snarling F-word spitting demon when confronted with a lane changer with no indicator. Cyclists aren't the only thing in their targets. You'd be pretty naive to think that this opinion piece from Meers isn't going to inflame things though. Some people only need the flimsiest of excuses to vent the rage.